Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[CousinsCowgirl84]

21 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Good post, but I'm not sure that the bolded is true. There just aren't enough bombs to do that.

 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sT6NxFxso6Z9xjS7o/nuclear-war-is-unlikely-to-cause-human-extinction

I guess it depends on how you define survive….

 

I wonder what the urgent issue Zelenksy is referring to that makes him unable to meet… 

Edited March 14, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Jabbyrwock]

42 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

Im hoping they will release the math formula they used to determine the value of a Ukrainian life versus a NATO life. 

 

Most NATO member states seem to value human life with the well known "Inconvenient Darkie" formula:

 

Life Value = C minimum distance from Russia or China / (Epidermal Melatonin Concentration^2) 

 

C is a constant.

 

40 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I guess it depends on how you define survive….

 

Meaning the species can be repopulated

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Jabbyrwock

[mistertim]

28 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I guess it depends on how you define survive….

 

I wonder what the urgent issue Zelenksy is referring to that makes him unable to meet… 

 

 

 

There's certainly no doubt that the world and our societies would change in drastic and almost unforseeable ways. I was just saying that a full nuclear exchange wouldn't cause the extinction of the human race.

Edited March 14, 2022 by mistertim

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

I don't see any way they wouldn't go to war for each other. I doubt NATO would have as many members as it does now if the return for contributing money and forces is a pat on the back and "get well soon" card.

I think I remember one of your ex president complaining about NATO countries not contributing enough into NATO.

NATO's forces are 90% due to USA, nobody else.

I'm pretty sure your GOP and MAGA guys would loudly remind Joe Biden that Latvia, Estonia or Litunia aren't worth it and the Russians can do whatever they want with them. They wouldn't care much if it was Poland either. Providing help like what we're doing we Ukraine right now would be enough so we do not end up a nuclear war. And Putin would be fine with that, because in the end, he still wins.

 

The only one time it was used was on 9/11, and USA was the attacked country.

 

Like it or not, but the USA does have an history of staying at bay when the world is on fire.

[NickyJ]

  

2 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

Im hoping they will release the math formula they used to determine the value of a Ukrainian life versus a NATO life. 

We already know it. It's 2% of a country's GDP spent towards NATO. NATO is an insurance policy. In American mafia land, insurance means you won't have a mobster come to your business and destroy it. NATO's insurance is that NATO will come to an insured country's defense, but with fewer brass knuckles to encourage people to sign on.

Not in NATO = No official NATO support. Otherwise, there's not much point in contributing to it if NATO's going to save you anyway. It massively sucks for the people in Ukraine who are losing their lives over it, but not many countries are willing to send their soldiers to die for people who aren't going to help in return. Individual soldiers will be willing to fight like we've seen so far, but to commit an entire country to it is going to require the public to buy in to a war.
 

12 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I think I remember one of your ex president complaining about NATO countries not contributing enough into NATO.

NATO's forces are 90% due to USA, nobody else.

I'm pretty sure your GOP and MAGA guys would loudly remind Joe Biden that Latvia, Estonia or Litunia aren't worth it and the Russians can do whatever they want with them. They wouldn't care much if it was Poland either. Providing help like what we're doing we Ukraine right now would be enough so we do not end up a nuclear war. And Putin would be fine with that, because in the end, he still wins.

 

The only one time it was used was on 9/11, and USA was the attacked country.

 

Like it or not, but the USA does have an history of staying at bay when the world is on fire.

 

Yes, USA wanted NATO countries to contribute more, but in the end, I don't see USA backing out. I'd expect NATO is part of the reason USA is able to keep camps in so many European countries. After how much we used them for our Middle East wars, I doubt USA would want to risk losing them.

Has a NATO nation been attacked yet to test it out? Even on 9/11, the U.S. wasn't really attacked by a specific nation, just terrorists with bases in that country. As far as I can remember, no foreign nation has attacked a nation allied with NATO.

Edited March 14, 2022 by NickyJ

[MrSilverMaC]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Good post, but I'm not sure that the bolded is true. There just aren't enough bombs to do that.

 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sT6NxFxso6Z9xjS7o/nuclear-war-is-unlikely-to-cause-human-extinction

That’s interesting info. It still looks pretty grim for humankind and China would probably still be in range of fallout, but maybe I just still got that 80’s kid fear rattling around in my head painting a worse picture than it would be.

[China]

Russia could default on its debt within days

 

Russia has sent the clearest signal yet that it will soon default — the first time it will have failed to meet its foreign debt obligations since the Bolshevik revolution more than a century ago.

 

Half of the country's foreign reserves — roughly $315 billion — have been frozen by Western sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine, Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov said on Sunday. As a result, Moscow will repay creditors from "countries that are unfriendly" in rubles until the sanctions are lifted, he said.

Credit ratings agencies would likely consider Russia to be in default if Moscow misses payments or repays debt issued in dollars or euros with other currencies such as the ruble or China's yuan. A default could drive the few remaining foreign investors out of Russia and further isolate the country's crumbling economy.

The default could come as early as Wednesday, when Moscow needs to hand over $117 million in interest payments on dollar-denominated government bonds, according to JPMorgan Chase. Although Russia has issued bonds that can be repaid in multiple currencies since 2018, these payments must be made in US dollars.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[mistertim]

14 minutes ago, MrSilverMaC said:

That’s interesting info. It still looks pretty grim for humankind and China would probably still be in range of fallout, but maybe I just still got that 80’s kid fear rattling around in my head painting a worse picture than it would be.

 

I think that's understandable. And in that article he says specifically that his scenario is based on the current world stockpile (around 14,000 warheads) as opposed to the stockpiles during the height of the cold war (around 70,000 warheads). If it happened during the cold war that would have literally been 5 times as many nuclear explosions, so that would definitely have had a much larger impact than the scenario today.

 

But I agree that it would be very grim, especially for the countries involved. There would also be absolutely insane economic implications that could be at least as bad as the actual physical suffering the bombs would cause. 

[China]

If Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine it’s a ‘game changer’ for NATO

 

There are increasing concerns that Russia could be prepared to use chemical weapons to attack Ukraine, with Western officials and strategists warning the threat posed by Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin in this regard is credible and serious.

 

In the last week, Russia itself has accused Ukraine of operating chemical and biological weapons laboratories backed by the U.S. The claims were roundly rebuffed by Ukrainian and Western officials, with the U.S. describing them as “outright lies.” But they have caused alarm nonetheless, with many officials seeing them as Russia inventing and building a false narrative and pretext for using its own chemical weapons against Ukraine, a prospect described as “horrific” by the U.S.

 

“Russia has a track record of accusing the West of the very crimes that Russia itself is perpetrating. These tactics are an obvious ploy by Russia to try to justify further premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified attacks on Ukraine,” State Department Spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement last week.

 

“The United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine ... It is Russia that has active chemical and biological weapons programs and is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention,” he added.

 

President Joe Biden warned Friday that there would be a “severe price” to pay if Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Sunday that such a move would be a war crime.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

 

[MrSilverMaC]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

I think I remember one of your ex president complaining about NATO countries not contributing enough into NATO.

NATO's forces are 90% due to USA, nobody else.

I'm pretty sure your GOP and MAGA guys would loudly remind Joe Biden that Latvia, Estonia or Litunia aren't worth it and the Russians can do whatever they want with them. They wouldn't care much if it was Poland either. Providing help like what we're doing we Ukraine right now would be enough so we do not end up a nuclear war. And Putin would be fine with that, because in the end, he still wins.

 

The only one time it was used was on 9/11, and USA was the attacked country.

 

Like it or not, but the USA does have an history of staying at bay when the world is on fire.

Both Obama and the orange dip**** asked NATO members to increase their military budgets. What would the landscape look like if each NATO country had boosted their spending as was requested? Obama asked for that increase almost 10 years ago.

 

The sad part is it was probably something vladimir puto put in cheeto-hitler’s ear to drive NATO apart by making the request knowing no one would see it as a reasonable expense after they ignored Obama.

 

Every country likes to stand on the sidelines.

 

You’re in Europe, I’m sure you know the history leading up to ww2 better than almost anyone else in the world. Both Europe and the U.S seem to be intent on approaching this the same way.
 

But why is it only the U.S can institute a no-fly zone?
 

France has enough fire power to make a huge impact on what’s happening, they have nukes, and a history of not really caring what the U.S says. They don’t seem to be sending Rafales to close the sky over Ukraine.

The same with Germany who could send 30 typhoons right now to clear the sky over Ukraine especially since they basically undermined every attempt we’ve made to sanction bad actors for the last 20 years. Hell, given Ukraine’s own success against the russian Air Force I’d say most NATO countries are capable of helping to close the sky over Ukraine. 

 

Are Europeans demanding their own governments start shooting down russian jets?
 

The world likes to **** on the U.S for sticking their noses where it doesn’t belong til someone near them starts bullying them.

 

Don’t take this as a shot at you cause I understand your frustration and even partially agree with it, but it gets old having the world act like only the U.S can step in to help in a situation like this.

Edited March 15, 2022 by MrSilverMaC

[Fergasun]

We are not at "war", but we are collapsing Russia's economy.  We are not at "war" but we are arming Russia's enemies.  Why should these semantics about escalation matter. Russia invaded Ukraine.  How is attempting to bring economic collapse not "war"?

 

I understand the policy.  We don't want this war to "escalate" but escalate means "don't spill American blood" (or NATO).  We are trying to be really "nice guys" to Russians.  Quite frankly, we could bomb the Russians on Ukrainian soil and claim to be "helping Russia take care of the Nazi's in Ukrainian soil".  

 

All I understand, is that I really don't understand Russian resistance to the west (and China).  If those countries opened up culturally, do they really think they won't be friends with America?  China just needs to look at Japan.  Russia can look at Germany.  So I think China stepping in and not helping Putin could be something big -- I doubt it since they seem to enjoy and running an autocracy.

 

If there's not a quick internal collapse to Russia, which is going to bring tons of pain to them (6 to 12 months), is there a chance it is going to spawn a generation that ends up more hostile to the west?  

[ixcuincle]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

[tshile]

6 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Good post, but I'm not sure that the bolded is true. There just aren't enough bombs to do that.

 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sT6NxFxso6Z9xjS7o/nuclear-war-is-unlikely-to-cause-human-extinction

What I learned from this is I need to move

to South America 

[Die Hard]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

What I learned from this is I need to move

to South America 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Is Zelensky saying they are moving toward peace a good sign the war might be over soon? I know they were having more positive talk with Russia…. 

[88Comrade2000]

Many believe that Putin wouldn’t invade if Trump were president. They are only partially right. Putin wouldn’t invade during a Trump first term. Once Trump got re-elected though and pulled US out of NATO; Putin would invade and recapture all the Soviet Union territory and then go after the Warsaw Pact countries and then maybe some if the weaker European countries.

 

Putin didn’t do anything in Trump’s term because Trump was doing everything Putin wanted. If Trump won in 20; the first thing Trump would’ve done was pulled out of NATO. Putin would’ve waited and once the US was gone; he would’ve pounced, knowing Trump would do nothing and Europe wouldn’t be able to stop him.

[88Comrade2000]

48 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Is Zelensky saying they are moving toward peace a good sign the war might be over soon? I know they were having more positive talk with Russia…. 

Beware dealing with the devil.

 

So, Ukraine let’s Russia have Crimea and Donbas. They agree not to join nato.

 

Anyone really believe Putin will stop? He will eventually assassinate Zelinsky and install a puppet president.